Darlington Building Society chief executive David Dodd received £186,161 in his remuneration package last year

THE boss of Darlington Building Society has been criticised after receiving a £27,000 increase in the financial package paid to him last year.

David Dodd, who plans to retire later this year, saw his overall remuneration leap to £186,161 - a 16.5 per cent rise on the 2012 figure of £159,722.

The chief executive’s salary rose from £142,127 to £158,597 but Mr Dodd also received £11,000 in bonuses in 2013, while pension contributions he received from the society also increased.

Details of directors’ pay is included in the accounts for the year ending December 31 2013, which will be presented to members at an annual general meeting at The Bowes Museum, Barnard Castle, on April 17.

They show that group profits grew year-on-year from £1.45m in 2012 to £2.02m last year, while total assets increased to £519.8m last year, a 1.7 per cent rise.

Bryan Webster, a former Methodist minister in Darlington and a retired management consultant who has been a member of the society for more than 20 years, said Mr Dodd’s rise was “excessive”.

He said: “If I worked in a branch I would feel choked that the chief executive is being paid extra what is probably more than my annual salary.

“In a time of austerity when everyone is being asked to tighten their belts I struggle to understand why [Mr Dodd] should suddenly get such a hefty increase.

“The other directors have done quite well too. It seems to be a case of ‘You scratch my back I scratch yours’.”

Members will be asked to approve the society’s accounts at the meeting next month, but Mr Webster said he would not vote in accordance with the recommendations.

Mr Dodd, 57, joined Darlington Building Society in 1998 and has been its chief executive since 2009.

A spokeswoman for the society, which has 108 staff, said the package given to Mr Dodd was agreed by its remuneration committee, which followed a national code of practice.

She said: “The remuneration rise appears larger than normal because it includes a delayed bonus from three years ago.

“At that time of economic uncertainty the chief executive met the tough challenges set by the board. His performance triggered a bonus, but the payment was delayed in order that a positive upward trend was established and verified.”

Introducing the accounts, chairman James Ramsbotham said Mr Dodd had done “more than anyone could ask to build a platform for future sustainable growth” for the building society.

Darkroom Devil wrote:
And.......
He's the head honcho of a very profitable company.

And.........

I feel sorry for his staff. The majority of whom are paid very poorly. They must be over the moon that one greedy self serving pig at the top is helping himself to a bonus which dwarfs the salaries of most of his co-workers. This is exactly what's wrong with the country today.

[quote][p][bold]Darkroom Devil[/bold] wrote:
And.......
He's the head honcho of a very profitable company.[/p][/quote]And.........
I feel sorry for his staff. The majority of whom are paid very poorly. They must be over the moon that one greedy self serving pig at the top is helping himself to a bonus which dwarfs the salaries of most of his co-workers. This is exactly what's wrong with the country today.thetruthyoucanthandlethetruth

If not for those at the bottom working hard do you really think the company would have as much success, surely bonus's should be paid to everyone, not just some already over paid person at the top.

If not for those at the bottom working hard do you really think the company would have as much success, surely bonus's should be paid to everyone, not just some already over paid person at the top.MartinMo

Interesting how straight away some people criticize the amount. Ignoring the work that has gone in, and the fact that it is a delayed bonus, so that something has been done right over the last three years to achieve the amount.
This guy now earns what the previous Chief Executive earned in 2000, and for those mathematically challenged that was 14 years ago.
So hey hoe give your head a shake and get a life.
Like his finance lady who also gets a bonus, he started at the very bottom, and worked his way up top the top. Not many industries see that now!!

Interesting how straight away some people criticize the amount. Ignoring the work that has gone in, and the fact that it is a delayed bonus, so that something has been done right over the last three years to achieve the amount.
This guy now earns what the previous Chief Executive earned in 2000, and for those mathematically challenged that was 14 years ago.
So hey hoe give your head a shake and get a life.
Like his finance lady who also gets a bonus, he started at the very bottom, and worked his way up top the top. Not many industries see that now!!govancroft

If you don't like it vote the directors out when their re-election time comes round. Take a chance and elect some "very poorly paid" employee from "the tills" to run the Company and see what happens to the business.

Incidently, he earns less than most Council Chief Execs who are paid by the taxpayer.

If you don't like it vote the directors out when their re-election time comes round. Take a chance and elect some "very poorly paid" employee from "the tills" to run the Company and see what happens to the business.
Incidently, he earns less than most Council Chief Execs who are paid by the taxpayer.Withnail Lefty

The head of a company that's turning a profit and in fact increasing its profits (in an economic downturn) and safeguarding the jobs of the employees it employs is shockingly rewarded for his success... /s

oh my god !! shock horror !!!
The head of a company that's turning a profit and in fact increasing its profits (in an economic downturn) and safeguarding the jobs of the employees it employs is shockingly rewarded for his success... /sYemen

Withnail Lefty wrote:
If you don't like it vote the directors out when their re-election time comes round. Take a chance and elect some &quot;very poorly paid" employee from "the tills" to run the Company and see what happens to the business.

Incidently, he earns less than most Council Chief Execs who are paid by the taxpayer.

What a condescending prat. Truth be told, there are many people in this organisation that could do just as good a job - or a better one, who are being paid a pittance and who stand little or no chance of rising up the ranks. The same goes for most organisations. The people at the top tend to be where they are because they've kissed many an a$$ over the years, or played a canny political game. They are not necessarily there because of their talent.

[quote][p][bold]Withnail Lefty[/bold] wrote:
If you don't like it vote the directors out when their re-election time comes round. Take a chance and elect some "very poorly paid" employee from "the tills" to run the Company and see what happens to the business.
Incidently, he earns less than most Council Chief Execs who are paid by the taxpayer.[/p][/quote]What a condescending prat. Truth be told, there are many people in this organisation that could do just as good a job - or a better one, who are being paid a pittance and who stand little or no chance of rising up the ranks. The same goes for most organisations. The people at the top tend to be where they are because they've kissed many an a$$ over the years, or played a canny political game. They are not necessarily there because of their talent.thetruthyoucanthandlethetruth

Withnail Lefty wrote: If you don't like it vote the directors out when their re-election time comes round. Take a chance and elect some &quot;very poorly paid" employee from "the tills" to run the Company and see what happens to the business. Incidently, he earns less than most Council Chief Execs who are paid by the taxpayer.

What a condescending prat. Truth be told, there are many people in this organisation that could do just as good a job - or a better one, who are being paid a pittance and who stand little or no chance of rising up the ranks. The same goes for most organisations. The people at the top tend to be where they are because they've kissed many an a$$ over the years, or played a canny political game. They are not necessarily there because of their talent.

Are you aggressively abusive in life in general or just when behind a keyboard?
Do you have anger and bitterness issues? Perhaps you are one of the "many people in this organisation that could do just as good a job - or a better one, who are being paid a pittance and who stand little or no chance of rising up the ranks".
Apparently, there is a forthcoming meeting within the next month where you can go along and vote against remuneration packages, director appointments and the like. Why not go and see if you and canvass for the changes you deire.

[quote][p][bold]thetruthyoucanthandl
ethetruth[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Withnail Lefty[/bold] wrote: If you don't like it vote the directors out when their re-election time comes round. Take a chance and elect some "very poorly paid" employee from "the tills" to run the Company and see what happens to the business. Incidently, he earns less than most Council Chief Execs who are paid by the taxpayer.[/p][/quote]What a condescending prat. Truth be told, there are many people in this organisation that could do just as good a job - or a better one, who are being paid a pittance and who stand little or no chance of rising up the ranks. The same goes for most organisations. The people at the top tend to be where they are because they've kissed many an a$$ over the years, or played a canny political game. They are not necessarily there because of their talent.[/p][/quote]Are you aggressively abusive in life in general or just when behind a keyboard?
Do you have anger and bitterness issues? Perhaps you are one of the "many people in this organisation that could do just as good a job - or a better one, who are being paid a pittance and who stand little or no chance of rising up the ranks".
Apparently, there is a forthcoming meeting within the next month where you can go along and vote against remuneration packages, director appointments and the like. Why not go and see if you and canvass for the changes you deire.Withnail Lefty

Withnail Lefty wrote:
If you don't like it vote the directors out when their re-election time comes round. Take a chance and elect some &quot;very poorly paid" employee from "the tills" to run the Company and see what happens to the business.

Incidently, he earns less than most Council Chief Execs who are paid by the taxpayer.

What a condescending prat. Truth be told, there are many people in this organisation that could do just as good a job - or a better one, who are being paid a pittance and who stand little or no chance of rising up the ranks. The same goes for most organisations. The people at the top tend to be where they are because they've kissed many an a$$ over the years, or played a canny political game. They are not necessarily there because of their talent.

Not sure if you noticed the 41% rise in profits?? That's a pretty impressive rise for any company..

Do you work for DBS?? Is this why you are that upset about the rise?? And bonus??

Perhaps instead of trying to undermine local companies the Eco could celebrate and publicise a great success story!!!

[quote][p][bold]thetruthyoucanthandl
ethetruth[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Withnail Lefty[/bold] wrote:
If you don't like it vote the directors out when their re-election time comes round. Take a chance and elect some "very poorly paid" employee from "the tills" to run the Company and see what happens to the business.
Incidently, he earns less than most Council Chief Execs who are paid by the taxpayer.[/p][/quote]What a condescending prat. Truth be told, there are many people in this organisation that could do just as good a job - or a better one, who are being paid a pittance and who stand little or no chance of rising up the ranks. The same goes for most organisations. The people at the top tend to be where they are because they've kissed many an a$$ over the years, or played a canny political game. They are not necessarily there because of their talent.[/p][/quote]Not sure if you noticed the 41% rise in profits?? That's a pretty impressive rise for any company..
Do you work for DBS?? Is this why you are that upset about the rise?? And bonus??
Perhaps instead of trying to undermine local companies the Eco could celebrate and publicise a great success story!!!laboursfoe

Withnail Lefty wrote: If you don't like it vote the directors out when their re-election time comes round. Take a chance and elect some &quot;very poorly paid" employee from "the tills" to run the Company and see what happens to the business. Incidently, he earns less than most Council Chief Execs who are paid by the taxpayer.

What a condescending prat. Truth be told, there are many people in this organisation that could do just as good a job - or a better one, who are being paid a pittance and who stand little or no chance of rising up the ranks. The same goes for most organisations. The people at the top tend to be where they are because they've kissed many an a$$ over the years, or played a canny political game. They are not necessarily there because of their talent.

Are you aggressively abusive in life in general or just when behind a keyboard?
Do you have anger and bitterness issues? Perhaps you are one of the "many people in this organisation that could do just as good a job - or a better one, who are being paid a pittance and who stand little or no chance of rising up the ranks".
Apparently, there is a forthcoming meeting within the next month where you can go along and vote against remuneration packages, director appointments and the like. Why not go and see if you and canvass for the changes you deire.

You think that's being aggressively abusive? What a moron.

[quote][p][bold]Withnail Lefty[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]thetruthyoucanthandl
ethetruth[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Withnail Lefty[/bold] wrote: If you don't like it vote the directors out when their re-election time comes round. Take a chance and elect some "very poorly paid" employee from "the tills" to run the Company and see what happens to the business. Incidently, he earns less than most Council Chief Execs who are paid by the taxpayer.[/p][/quote]What a condescending prat. Truth be told, there are many people in this organisation that could do just as good a job - or a better one, who are being paid a pittance and who stand little or no chance of rising up the ranks. The same goes for most organisations. The people at the top tend to be where they are because they've kissed many an a$$ over the years, or played a canny political game. They are not necessarily there because of their talent.[/p][/quote]Are you aggressively abusive in life in general or just when behind a keyboard?
Do you have anger and bitterness issues? Perhaps you are one of the "many people in this organisation that could do just as good a job - or a better one, who are being paid a pittance and who stand little or no chance of rising up the ranks".
Apparently, there is a forthcoming meeting within the next month where you can go along and vote against remuneration packages, director appointments and the like. Why not go and see if you and canvass for the changes you deire.[/p][/quote]You think that's being aggressively abusive? What a moron.thetruthyoucanthandlethetruth

Waiting for a completion date on a house here....I was going to put the money into DBS.

Guess what, I still am....and out of the pockets of the RBOS (who are the REAL thieves here). I shall enjoy that. This guy has earned his money - RBOS hasn't.

Waiting for a completion date on a house here....I was going to put the money into DBS.
Guess what, I still am....and out of the pockets of the RBOS (who are the REAL thieves here). I shall enjoy that. This guy has earned his money - RBOS hasn't.Copley23

Gretaandtees wrote:
Extremely embarrassing for any Building Society to be associated with this kind of remuneration.

Well what sort of renumeration should a Chief Exec of a multi million pound business get??

£18,000 and a bus pass??!! Some of the banks have IT staff on over £100k

[quote][p][bold]Gretaandtees[/bold] wrote:
Extremely embarrassing for any Building Society to be associated with this kind of remuneration.[/p][/quote]Well what sort of renumeration should a Chief Exec of a multi million pound business get??
£18,000 and a bus pass??!! Some of the banks have IT staff on over £100klaboursfoe

Surely this was put to a vote? If so why was it passed and if it was voted through surely you as members are remiss in kicking up a stink now. If you do not like these wage packages kick them into touch at the right time. If it is a one off rise then it is wrong and the Board need a slap on the wrist and WHY do these people need such large packages especially when the rest of us are told get on without it or make do or mend.

Surely this was put to a vote? If so why was it passed and if it was voted through surely you as members are remiss in kicking up a stink now. If you do not like these wage packages kick them into touch at the right time. If it is a one off rise then it is wrong and the Board need a slap on the wrist and WHY do these people need such large packages especially when the rest of us are told get on without it or make do or mend.oliviaden6

Nothing has been put to a vote yet as one of the posts here already says. This will happen at the company's AGM next month when the accounts will be formally received. Members will have a chance then to quiz executives about any decisions made.

Nothing has been put to a vote yet as one of the posts here already says. This will happen at the company's AGM next month when the accounts will be formally received. Members will have a chance then to quiz executives about any decisions made.Stuart Arnold

Stuart Arnold wrote:
Nothing has been put to a vote yet as one of the posts here already says. This will happen at the company's AGM next month when the accounts will be formally received. Members will have a chance then to quiz executives about any decisions made.

Thanks for the info.If most of the above disagree get along to the meeting and stop it in its tracks. These Bankers are not living in the real world.

[quote][p][bold]Stuart Arnold[/bold] wrote:
Nothing has been put to a vote yet as one of the posts here already says. This will happen at the company's AGM next month when the accounts will be formally received. Members will have a chance then to quiz executives about any decisions made.[/p][/quote]Thanks for the info.If most of the above disagree get along to the meeting and stop it in its tracks. These Bankers are not living in the real world.oliviaden6

Stuart Arnold wrote:
Nothing has been put to a vote yet as one of the posts here already says. This will happen at the company's AGM next month when the accounts will be formally received. Members will have a chance then to quiz executives about any decisions made.

Thanks for the info.If most of the above disagree get along to the meeting and stop it in its tracks. These Bankers are not living in the real world.

Just a thought.

If this bank is unable to attract the calibre of management required to drive forward profit increases of 41% in one year, will the members accept that ??
Organisations thrive with exceptional staff driven by exceptional leaders. With poor leadership and exceptional staff will never produce the required results.

I'm not a member or employee but I think it's pretty arrogant to suggest that he is not worth this.

[quote][p][bold]oliviaden6[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Stuart Arnold[/bold] wrote:
Nothing has been put to a vote yet as one of the posts here already says. This will happen at the company's AGM next month when the accounts will be formally received. Members will have a chance then to quiz executives about any decisions made.[/p][/quote]Thanks for the info.If most of the above disagree get along to the meeting and stop it in its tracks. These Bankers are not living in the real world.[/p][/quote]Just a thought.
If this bank is unable to attract the calibre of management required to drive forward profit increases of 41% in one year, will the members accept that ??
Organisations thrive with exceptional staff driven by exceptional leaders. With poor leadership and exceptional staff will never produce the required results.
I'm not a member or employee but I think it's pretty arrogant to suggest that he is not worth this.laboursfoe

Darkroom Devil wrote:
And.......
He's the head honcho of a very profitable company.

And.........

I feel sorry for his staff. The majority of whom are paid very poorly. They must be over the moon that one greedy self serving pig at the top is helping himself to a bonus which dwarfs the salaries of most of his co-workers. This is exactly what's wrong with the country today.

If it wasn't for him they wouldn't have jobs. That's how the world works. Get over it unless you prefer the all men are equal approach which incidentally is run by oil and gas billionaires.

[quote][p][bold]thetruthyoucanthandl
ethetruth[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Darkroom Devil[/bold] wrote:
And.......
He's the head honcho of a very profitable company.[/p][/quote]And.........
I feel sorry for his staff. The majority of whom are paid very poorly. They must be over the moon that one greedy self serving pig at the top is helping himself to a bonus which dwarfs the salaries of most of his co-workers. This is exactly what's wrong with the country today.[/p][/quote]If it wasn't for him they wouldn't have jobs. That's how the world works. Get over it unless you prefer the all men are equal approach which incidentally is run by oil and gas billionaires.Darkroom Devil

"David Dodd, who plans to retire later this year, saw his overall remuneration leap to £186,161 - a 16.5 per cent rise on the 2012 figure of £159,722. "

Just out of curiosity, is his pension to be based on Final Salary??

"David Dodd, who plans to retire later this year, saw his overall remuneration leap to £186,161 - a 16.5 per cent rise on the 2012 figure of £159,722. "
Just out of curiosity, is his pension to be based on Final Salary??CVBPLY

CVBPLY wrote:
&quot;David Dodd, who plans to retire later this year, saw his overall remuneration leap to £186,161 - a 16.5 per cent rise on the 2012 figure of £159,722. "

Just out of curiosity, is his pension to be based on Final Salary??

If you'd bother to read or understand it you will see that his 2013 salary was £158,500 the rest was bonus that had been deferred for 3 years and a modest bonus if or 2013.

Very hard to tell what his pension arrangements are...

[quote][p][bold]CVBPLY[/bold] wrote:
"David Dodd, who plans to retire later this year, saw his overall remuneration leap to £186,161 - a 16.5 per cent rise on the 2012 figure of £159,722. "
Just out of curiosity, is his pension to be based on Final Salary??[/p][/quote]If you'd bother to read or understand it you will see that his 2013 salary was £158,500 the rest was bonus that had been deferred for 3 years and a modest bonus if or 2013.
Very hard to tell what his pension arrangements are...laboursfoe

CVBPLY wrote:
&quot;David Dodd, who plans to retire later this year, saw his overall remuneration leap to £186,161 - a 16.5 per cent rise on the 2012 figure of £159,722. "

Just out of curiosity, is his pension to be based on Final Salary??

If you'd bother to read or understand it you will see that his 2013 salary was £158,500 the rest was bonus that had been deferred for 3 years and a modest bonus if or 2013.

Very hard to tell what his pension arrangements are...

The words in quotes were taken directly from the article.

You obviously don't understand the term 'final salary pension',

That was what my comment referred to.

[quote][p][bold]laboursfoe[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]CVBPLY[/bold] wrote:
"David Dodd, who plans to retire later this year, saw his overall remuneration leap to £186,161 - a 16.5 per cent rise on the 2012 figure of £159,722. "
Just out of curiosity, is his pension to be based on Final Salary??[/p][/quote]If you'd bother to read or understand it you will see that his 2013 salary was £158,500 the rest was bonus that had been deferred for 3 years and a modest bonus if or 2013.
Very hard to tell what his pension arrangements are...[/p][/quote]The words in quotes were taken directly from the article.
You obviously don't understand the term 'final salary pension',
That was what my comment referred to.CVBPLY

Asset rise was 1.7%, so they made a much larger profit on only a slightly increased asset base.
Could be that the previous year was an unusually low profit, or could be that this year it was unusually high. Either way without more detailed knowledge of what the increase in profit is driven by it is hard to make a comment on the profit increase.
After all a profit caused by selling off assets, or cutting jobs and providing poorer service would be very different to a profit caused by higher turnover.

So all we really know is the asset base increased by 1.7%, which is roughly inflation, while the pay rise was roughly 10x that.

I assume all the staff who have worked so hard to generate every penny of that profit will equally be expecting a pay rise of 10x inflation?

No? Well fancy that...

Asset rise was 1.7%, so they made a much larger profit on only a slightly increased asset base.
Could be that the previous year was an unusually low profit, or could be that this year it was unusually high. Either way without more detailed knowledge of what the increase in profit is driven by it is hard to make a comment on the profit increase.
After all a profit caused by selling off assets, or cutting jobs and providing poorer service would be very different to a profit caused by higher turnover.
So all we really know is the asset base increased by 1.7%, which is roughly inflation, while the pay rise was roughly 10x that.
I assume all the staff who have worked so hard to generate every penny of that profit will equally be expecting a pay rise of 10x inflation?
No? Well fancy that...bambara

bambara wrote:
Asset rise was 1.7%, so they made a much larger profit on only a slightly increased asset base.
Could be that the previous year was an unusually low profit, or could be that this year it was unusually high. Either way without more detailed knowledge of what the increase in profit is driven by it is hard to make a comment on the profit increase.
After all a profit caused by selling off assets, or cutting jobs and providing poorer service would be very different to a profit caused by higher turnover.

So all we really know is the asset base increased by 1.7%, which is roughly inflation, while the pay rise was roughly 10x that.

I assume all the staff who have worked so hard to generate every penny of that profit will equally be expecting a pay rise of 10x inflation?

No? Well fancy that...

My point exactly.

It always amazes me that verything is a team effort until the bonuses are dished out, then apperently one man did it all.

[quote][p][bold]bambara[/bold] wrote:
Asset rise was 1.7%, so they made a much larger profit on only a slightly increased asset base.
Could be that the previous year was an unusually low profit, or could be that this year it was unusually high. Either way without more detailed knowledge of what the increase in profit is driven by it is hard to make a comment on the profit increase.
After all a profit caused by selling off assets, or cutting jobs and providing poorer service would be very different to a profit caused by higher turnover.
So all we really know is the asset base increased by 1.7%, which is roughly inflation, while the pay rise was roughly 10x that.
I assume all the staff who have worked so hard to generate every penny of that profit will equally be expecting a pay rise of 10x inflation?
No? Well fancy that...[/p][/quote]My point exactly.
It always amazes me that verything is a team effort until the bonuses are dished out, then apperently one man did it all.MartinMo

bambara wrote:
Asset rise was 1.7%, so they made a much larger profit on only a slightly increased asset base.
Could be that the previous year was an unusually low profit, or could be that this year it was unusually high. Either way without more detailed knowledge of what the increase in profit is driven by it is hard to make a comment on the profit increase.
After all a profit caused by selling off assets, or cutting jobs and providing poorer service would be very different to a profit caused by higher turnover.

So all we really know is the asset base increased by 1.7%, which is roughly inflation, while the pay rise was roughly 10x that.

I assume all the staff who have worked so hard to generate every penny of that profit will equally be expecting a pay rise of 10x inflation?

No? Well fancy that...

My point exactly.

It always amazes me that verything is a team effort until the bonuses are dished out, then apperently one man did it all.

I agree with your comment. However on this thread there seems to be quite a few lemmings who think that this bonus is a good idea, and that he deserves it, and that the company wouldn't survive without him, and that the employees wouldn't have jobs if it weren't for him. etc etc. RUBBISH!

Share the wealth is what I've always said - but it never happens. The greedy few at the top of most organisations cream off all the money in bonuses and leave next to nothing for the majority who are the ones who've really earned it, and it's just plain wrong.

[quote][p][bold]MartinMo[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]bambara[/bold] wrote:
Asset rise was 1.7%, so they made a much larger profit on only a slightly increased asset base.
Could be that the previous year was an unusually low profit, or could be that this year it was unusually high. Either way without more detailed knowledge of what the increase in profit is driven by it is hard to make a comment on the profit increase.
After all a profit caused by selling off assets, or cutting jobs and providing poorer service would be very different to a profit caused by higher turnover.
So all we really know is the asset base increased by 1.7%, which is roughly inflation, while the pay rise was roughly 10x that.
I assume all the staff who have worked so hard to generate every penny of that profit will equally be expecting a pay rise of 10x inflation?
No? Well fancy that...[/p][/quote]My point exactly.
It always amazes me that verything is a team effort until the bonuses are dished out, then apperently one man did it all.[/p][/quote]I agree with your comment. However on this thread there seems to be quite a few lemmings who think that this bonus is a good idea, and that he deserves it, and that the company wouldn't survive without him, and that the employees wouldn't have jobs if it weren't for him. etc etc. RUBBISH!
Share the wealth is what I've always said - but it never happens. The greedy few at the top of most organisations cream off all the money in bonuses and leave next to nothing for the majority who are the ones who've really earned it, and it's just plain wrong.thetruthyoucanthandlethetruth